Collusion is still a tricky topic: student perspectives of academic integrity using assessment-specific examples in a science subject

Parkinson, A L; Hatje, Eva; Kuballa, Anna; Donkin, Rebecca; Reinke, Nicole B.

doi:10.1080/02602938.2022.2040947

Cited by 7 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One of the purposes of the scenarios used in the present study was to distinguish between assistance and collusion. Collusion is defined as collaboration without proper acknowledgement; a collective effort passed off as individual work (Parkinson et al, 2022). No mention from either the students or lecturer, who in fact described scenarios two and three as the same, was made of citation of GenAI.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

How generative artificial intelligence has blurred notions of authorial identity and academic norms in higher education, necessitating clear university usage policies

Duah,

McGivern

2024

IJILT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThis study examines the impact of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI), particularly ChatGPT, on higher education (HE). The ease with which content can be generated using GenAI has raised concerns across academia regarding its role in academic contexts, particularly regarding summative assessments. This research makes a unique contribution to the literature by examining university student and staff perceptions of current and future issues pertaining to the role of GenAI in universities.Design/methodology/approachA qualitative method involving five one-to-one semi-structured interviews with four students and a lecturer explored the ethical and practical issues of GenAI text generation in academia. An inductive thematic analysis was chosen as it provided nuanced insights aligned with the study’s goals.FindingsUse of GenAI was discussed within the context of a range of topics, including perceptions of academic misconduct, authorial integrity and issues pertaining to university policies. Participants universally defined traditional classifications of academic misconduct but were unable to provide clear definitions where the use of GenAI was included for writing summative assessments. Students showed a more open engagement with GenAI, considering it a tool for overcoming obstacles rather than a means to plagiarise. Educators were generally more cautious and less optimistic about the academic role of GenAI. Lack of clear institutional policies surrounding such tools also contributed to ethical ambiguities.Originality/valueThe study highlights diverging perspectives between students and academics, which necessitate a forum for dialogue, ensuring the need to develop clear policies to steer the integration of GenAI in a manner that is beneficial for students and academics.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

How generative artificial intelligence has blurred notions of authorial identity and academic norms in higher education, necessitating clear university usage policies

Duah,

McGivern

2024

IJILT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although EMI-specific literature is scarce in this area, prompting calls for further investigation (e.g. Sah, 2022), this context is evidently susceptible to established academic misconduct practices, such as direct, mosaic, or self-plagiarism (Bretag and Mahmud, 2009), collusion (Parkinson et al , 2022) and contract cheating (Newton, 2018). Notably, since the Emergency Remote Teaching of the COVID-19 pandemic, scholars suggest that culturally, there has been a documented decrease in academic integrity adherence (Eshet, 2023; Sevimel-Sahin, 2023).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transnational higher education cultures and generative AI: a nominal group study for policy development in English medium instruction

Bannister,

Alcalde Peñalver,

Santamaría Urbieta

2023

JME

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This purpose of this paper is to report on the development of an evidence-informed framework created to facilitate the formulation of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) academic integrity policy responses for English medium instruction (EMI) higher education, responding to both the bespoke challenges for the sector and longstanding calls to define and disseminate quality implementation good practice. Design/methodology/approach A virtual nominal group technique engaged experts (n = 14) in idea generation, refinement and consensus building across asynchronous and synchronous stages. The resulting qualitative and quantitative data were analysed using thematic analysis and descriptive statistics, respectively. Findings The GenAI Academic Integrity Policy Development Blueprint for EMI Tertiary Education is not a definitive mandate but represents a roadmap of inquiry for reflective deliberation as institutions chart their own courses in this complex terrain. Research limitations/implications If repeated with varying expert panellists, findings may vary to a certain extent; thus, further research with a wider range of stakeholders may be necessary for additional validation. Practical implications While grounded within the theoretical underpinnings of the field, the tool holds practical utility for stakeholders to develop bespoke policies and critically re-examine existing frameworks. Social implications As texts produced by students using English as an additional language are at risk of being wrongly accused of GenAI-assisted plagiarism, owing to the limited efficacy of text classifiers such as Turnitin, the policy recommendations encapsulated in the blueprint aim to reduce potential bias and unfair treatment of students. Originality/value The novel blueprint represents a step towards bridging concerning gaps in policy responses worldwide and aims to spark discussion and further much-needed scholarly exploration to this end.

show abstract

“…Specifically, through work between our subject-based academic colleagues and the Learning Development team, we have been able to provide scaffolded, level-specific and targeted educational pieces that teach our students our rationale and philosophy surrounding academic integrity. This educational piece is crucial to the success of our work: we better equip our students for their studies, their research and scholarship, and their future careers through providing the principles of academic integrity (Bornsztejn, 2022;Parkinson et al, 2022). Through compulsory institution-wide courses run by the Learning Development team and subject-specific, targeted educational pieces developed between the Learning Development team and the subject-based academics, our students are provided with sector-leading, academic literacies-driven pedagogical approaches to understanding academic misconduct (Lea & Street, 1998, 2006Street, 2010).…”

Section: Our Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Conductive Alloy: A ‘Whole Institution’ Approach to Student (Mis)conduct

2023

Education and New Developments 2023 – Volume 2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Student academic (mis)conduct is a source of significant organizational, strategic, and local risk, both to an educational institution and to the individual. While a university must uphold both its academic standards and its moral responsibilities, an individual student also needs to take responsibility for the originality of their work and the honesty of their degree outcome. The risk for a student can range from a lowered outcome to expulsion, while an academic institution lives or dies by its reputation. However, the general model of managing academic misconduct in a university setting is often fragmented and lacks clear ownership: often teaching and research staff educate their students on disciplinary standards, units for academic literacy provide centralized academic practice provision and can offer remedial support, and an academic standards division will manage the process of penalizing those students whose misconduct has been identified. The realities of large and complex academic institutions, often with high levels of devolved authority, often preclude a more holistic view. For example, at the stage of reprimand and redress, intentionality is not taken into account: a mistake in referencing or attribution without an intent to mislead is nonetheless still an instance of submitting the work of others for credit. This is a process issue often not appreciated fully by some academics involved in advising students, who focus on the idea of a student having planned or not to deceive a marker. Therefore, at the pre-offence stage, where a student is being inducted into new academic practices, care must be taken to bring the knowledge of the team in charge of imposing penalties directly into the process of training and advising students. In response to this, the present paper describes work undertaken at the University of Glasgow to develop a new integrated culture to tackle issues of academic integrity across the institution. We describe a partnership between colleagues in academic departments, our academic literacies/Learning Development team, our Student Conduct Team and colleagues from academic standards and policy to focus on a wide-view approach to student conduct, in order to shift the focus from reprimand and redress to 'before the offence'. We therefore propose a joined-up model that brings together this centralized teaching of good academic practice, systems and processes managing academic misconduct cases, and academic staff working within subject areas. This model places academic integrity, ownership of responsibility, and good academic practice at the centre of the student experience.

show abstract

Collusion is still a tricky topic: student perspectives of academic integrity using assessment-specific examples in a science subject

Cited by 7 publications

References 41 publications

How generative artificial intelligence has blurred notions of authorial identity and academic norms in higher education, necessitating clear university usage policies

How generative artificial intelligence has blurred notions of authorial identity and academic norms in higher education, necessitating clear university usage policies

Transnational higher education cultures and generative AI: a nominal group study for policy development in English medium instruction

A Conductive Alloy: A ‘Whole Institution’ Approach to Student (Mis)conduct

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About